Friday

Dec 28, 2007 at 12:01 AMDec 28, 2007 at 9:09 PM

State Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, has pre-filed a bill requiring for-profit swimming pools and facilities to carry a minimum $1 million liability insurance coverage. According to the bill, for every day the owner of the pool fails to maintain the required insurance, he or she will either be fined $100 or thrown in jail for the same lapsed time period, or both.

It would be called “Ethan’s Law.”

And one area businessman says it would mean financial destruction and that he’s being unfairly punished.

State Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, has pre-filed a bill requiring for-profit swimming pools and facilities to carry a minimum $1 million liability insurance coverage. According to the bill, for every day the owner of the pool fails to maintain the required insurance, he or she will either be fined $100 or thrown in jail for the same lapsed time period, or both.

The legislation, filed under HB 1341, is officially dubbed “Ethan’s Law” after 6-year-old Ethan Cory, who drowned last summer at the Swimmin’ Hole water park in northern Newton County, on the outskirts of Joplin. The park is inside Ruestman’s 131st district.

The Missouri Legislature could consider the bill after it meets in regular session on Jan. 9. If eventually passed by both Houses and signed into law by the governor, it would take effect Aug. 28, 2008 — unless an emergency provision is attached onto it in committee, according to Ruestman.

Ethan Cory’s parents, John and Lauren, could not be reached for comment.
But Ruestman said she showed the Corys her bill before she filed it and they were supportive.

“They feel like we should go with this and then if we need to take additional steps, if this doesn’t solve the problem, we can always revisit,” Ruestman said.

She said she filed the bill at the behest of area fire departments concerned about loopholes in state law that didn’t automatically award victims’ families with financial damages should the worst happen. She said The Swimmin’ Hole park wasn’t specifically singled out, though the bill did come as a result as of the tragedy that occurred there.

But James Burt, who owns the water park with his wife Diana, was cynical.

“It’s obvious that they’re zoning in on me, isn’t it?” he said. “…And whatever I say will be misconstrued.”

Burt said he has been “crucified” by area media following the Ethan Cory drowning at his park. Cory had been on a field trip at the Swimmin’ Hole with 33 other children with the Joplin Boys and Girls Club of Southwest Missouri when he was found floating dead in five feet of water. Authorities determined that lack of supervision was the root cause of the accident.

“It wasn’t even my fault,” Burt said. “So I’m not happy with (this bill). If they knew what I would have to pay in liability insurance it would be hard for me to even open my water park this coming year.”

Ruestman said she hadn’t spoken with any of the businesses that would be affected by the law. However, she said she was told by various insurance providers that most private parks of this sort already carry $1 million worth of liability and requiring that minimum wouldn’t likely create a hardship.

“The insurance industry itself sort of led me along to that figure,” she said.

However, Burt said he hasn’t carried liability insurance for the past five years, because the premiums skyrocketed and he could no longer afford it. He said if he maintained the standard $1 million liability policy it would cost him $72,000 in premiums just to cover the three summer months his park is in operation.

He said if Ruestman’s bill becomes law it would be financially “devastating” to his business.

“I would have basically no profit from this water park, and by doing that they know good and well what it would do — it would make me never open up again,” Burt said. “So they know what they’re doing. It’s pretty disgusting.”

Ruestman said the objective of the bill wasn’t to punish anyone or put The Swimmin’ Hole out of business.

“This is no way intended to target that pool or any pool,” Ruestman said. “But what we wanted to do was try to find a way to protect the public as they enter into private for-profit businesses where there is some risk…we wanted to be really narrow in our definition because it’s not out intent to punish someone or a private business.”

John and Lauren Cory have sued the Swimmin’ Hole park, and the Boys and Girls Club, for not providing a safe environment, and the park specifically for not carrying commercial liability insurance. The case is still in court.

Ruestman said the reason she focused on the insurance aspect when filing “Ethan’s Law” was so insurance companies would require parks meet certain safety standards as a condition of coverage, rather than those regulations being legislated in Jefferson City, which could be a complex and lengthy process.

She also recognized that “Ethan’s Law” might act as a substitute for some civil lawsuits.

“It’s a free country, and people are free to sue for whatever reason, but I would think if you had a liability insurance policy that some of that would be done with the victim’s family and the insurance company,” Ruestman said.

NOTEBOOK

According to State Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, “Ethan’s Law” would not apply to:

• Theme parks, which are already insured;

• Motel pools;

• Private residential pools.

Neosho Daily News

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.